Regarding productivity

[Excelsior]

Philosophy relates directly to pushing the technological envelope

Current is useless to active researchers without voltage & visa versa
As is volume without pressure
And mass without momentum

As is any methodology intended to achieve results, without prior conclusions having been made.

Some claim to have access to a mental "mind palace" where concepts can be calibrated prior to physical implementation
Tesla claimed to have this gift as do others, I see this being the only way to avoid unending and expensive trial and error in a given project.
Most people however are limited to what they can perceive and are thus, gifted elsehow.


My question is; what approach, mindset or perspective do you the reader feel is universally applicable to energy research at this level?

A priori to anything being done, what fundamentals should be laid out in order for success, or ease of execution, of a given experiment?

Beginners often have nowhere to begin as it were.. meanwhile, bringing others into this field should be a top priority

As I see it, we should be working from first principles
Also, developing certainty of perspective through extensive contemplation of the work to be done and the implied ramifications upon completion..
Look to the extensive work done in other fields and make well based assumptions without the critique of others hindering any progress

Thoughts appreciated 

[3D Magnetics]

I remember as a young child  ,finding old car radios and televisions at the rubbish tip with pretty colored thingamajigs and wires running all over the place .
Try as i might, my own arrangements. which looked the part never did a dam thing  .

I learned to solder in the process

Looking at one thing that is not well understood ,then trying to replicate without a clear understanding cannot give results other than  misunderstood ones .

My take is
Break things down to their smaller parts and learn those well , do your own smaller experiments and gain relevant experience .

The process of learning has and is always at the core of any project and what you learn may not be as you imagined .

Just as there are so many things that are right under our noses but we refuse to look.

[solarlab]

Philosophy relates directly to pushing the technological envelope

Current is useless to active researchers without voltage & visa versa
As is volume without pressure
And mass without momentum

As is any methodology intended to achieve results, without prior conclusions having been made.

Some claim to have access to a mental "mind palace" where concepts can be calibrated prior to physical implementation
Tesla claimed to have this gift as do others, I see this being the only way to avoid unending and expensive trial and error in a given project.
Most people however are limited to what they can perceive and are thus, gifted elsehow.


My question is; what approach, mindset or perspective do you the reader feel is universally applicable to energy research at this level?
A priori to anything being done, what fundamentals should be laid out in order for success, or ease of execution, of a given experiment?
Beginners often have nowhere to begin as it were.. meanwhile, bringing others into this field should be a top priority

As I see it, we should be working from first principles
Also, developing certainty of perspective through extensive contemplation of the work to be done and the implied ramifications upon completion..
Look to the extensive work done in other fields and make well based assumptions without the critique of others hindering any progress

Thoughts appreciated 

Hi Excelsior,

Good perception; I agree!

Now that I have finished the Holcomb "LinGen" device development and sent it off for Fab; do you have any
other areas of invenstigation that you feel would be worth an analysis?

Being one with the "Curse of the Ever Curious" and having the tools and, to some extent, the capability to
look into new areas of discovery, - are there any promising fields that you feel would be worth looking into?

Magnetic Motors and the Ruslan device are on the list but if you have any other promising technologies that
might enter the "short list" please elaborate (the Ruslan device has been studied but there still appears to be
a problem with stability - a work in progress for now).

Thanks. Always looking for a new challenge!

Regards,

SL

[Excelsior]

@ SL Congrats on the project completion !

The way I see it is, energy is "lost" to us in conversion processes.
Given the state of the art, a battery or capacitor will stay charged a long time and lose little to self consumption.

In an off-grid solar installation-
Taking PV-DC, making AC, then making DC again through a smps or similar will only ever be max ~90% efficient.
It's necessary for the convenience it affords, with the devices configured the way they are; but this is by no means ideal.

This is the means generally deployed, nonetheless.

The devices we all (generally) use are built in such a way that their power consumption can be accurately recorded and charged for.
This is intentional, a feature and not a flaw (for the designers and retailer, that is, IMO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSno9pXx7Cg

If It isn't as simple as "the battery provided current to the circuit and thus its power decreased"
And what actually happens (as has been speculated) is that the battery provides a dissymmetry, into which pre existing energy flows in -
(and not necessarily from the battery, as is so deeply engrained in EE)
- Then it should be possible to use some clever mechanism to "trick" the circuit into powering itself
As I often analogize, if a given device is successfully looped, the glass (total energy in cycle) can't be perfectly full (COP>1)
(Try filling a drinking glass with a big bucket, bet some spills over)
This should apply "across the board" - energy is merely transmuted and distributed, seemingly neither produced nor eliminated for or from our reality.
Accessible, mechanical systems should be just as possible to loop with output as electrical systems, seeing as they are too, open systems.

Actually I'd say there's no such thing as a closed system, temporally speaking, or in terms of "cosmic rays" always being present.
(even in DUMBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXjufyWqJEM)



In more basic considerations, I am of the opinion that anyone doing this work needs a private (and capacious) space in which to work

This is fundamental!

Also to consider fundamentally, why they are doing what they are doing.

Consult either your peers, your inner critic, your higher self, or better still, all three, regardless of whether you think you need to.
Differing perspectives can be garnered.
Which, given sufficient juxtaposition and consideration, and time
Should yield ample orientation through the process of logical deduction, for those of us seeking answers which do not yet exist.

RE suggestions; I would propose building a small gravity motor. They are inexpensive and not enough examples exist in my searches.
Once a functioning,looped OU design is shared it can be simplified and built by anyone anywhere, cheaply.
Nothing anyone could do about it .. If a sizeable output was demo'd, it'd spread like wildfire.. Job done 


The Skinner device is probably the most appealing mechanical OU design I have encountered.
Reading through my build bench and the other misc. thread, also the work of others on OU.com and YT,
Should give anyone a significant legup in getting started and save them many hours of component revisions.
Quantum Energy on YT is also building one of these devices, worth checking out. (Vid in my playlist)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpuBp-WaqFobl1olMsCLo1hzwvTIewbvj
Once you get started, things become clearer and easier.

[Excelsior]

@3D Magnetics
Brilliant! I agree completely
No one should be "biting off more than they can chew"
But simultaneously, experience is the best teacher for many.
Main thing to grasp imo are the potential reasons for us not having OU tech be designed and sold in full form already.
Seems that it's not because it can't work..

He (/she) who has a why, will find a how 


Will be good to hear others thoughts on this too.

[Allcanadian]

Excelsior

My question is; what approach, mindset or perspective do you the reader feel is universally applicable to energy research at this level?
A priori to anything being done, what fundamentals should be laid out in order for success, or ease of execution, of a given experiment?
Beginners often have nowhere to begin as it were.. meanwhile, bringing others into this field should be a top priority

I think it depends on the person. Nothing ever seemed to work out until I read some of Gustave Le Bon's work on psychology ie. "The Crowd". In effect, we cannot learn from a crowd of people using the same reasoning based on the same perspective. We need to seek out more knowledgeable individuals who have already succeeded and adopt there perspective. Once I realized my perspective was the problem not the people I was trying to learn from everything became easier. Logically a person who cannot accept being wrong about something cannot learn and make progress.

As I see it, we should be working from first principles
Also, developing certainty of perspective through extensive contemplation of the work to be done and the implied ramifications upon completion..
Look to the extensive work done in other fields and make well based assumptions without the critique of others hindering any progress

I agree and found the level on which were thinking matters. Like most I used to look at things subjectively in a superficial manner. For example, most measure heat by measuring the temperature with a thermometer. In reality temperature is only the lumped sum/average measure of billions of individual particles all oscillating at different rates and energy levels. However many have been falsely led to believe heat/temperature means all the atoms are oscillating at the same rate which is not true.

For example we all understand about what happens when water evaporates don't we?. However what 99% of people think happens isn't even remotely true in reality. The water/atmosphere interface forms an electrical double layer like a super capacitor because the Earth has a (-) charge and the atmosphere (+). So the top water layer is more (-) and it is the electric field/potential difference and heat/excitation oscillation which causes evaporation of only the most energetic molecules. The evaporated water now a vapor also carries a massive amount of (-) charge with it. As such the evaporation of water and the whole water cycle is as much an electrical process as a heat related phenomena. However most of this information is difficult to find or hidden behind science paywalls for some reason?.

I have found this is generally always the case. We think we understand things but the closer we look the more we realize how little we actually understand. Which is why we should always use first principals and look at the fundamental cause of why things happen.

AC

[solarlab]

Hi Excelsior,

OK thanks - if you think of something worth tackling or needs a solution that's
a little more pragmatic let me know and we'll see if it can be broken into
parts that can be analyzed.

Have a good one!

SL

[Excelsior]

@ AC Glad we agree on this.
Humility should be a cornerstone of this work.
I feel as though most of the problem comes from a failure of scale & scope.
A fish doesn't know it's in water.

Seeing as most R&D is done in order to turn a profit ultimately, who knows what has been missed?
The power of the individual should not be understated IMO.
There are many people out there who don't even know this place exists, who may have answers we have not considered

Very interesting stuff RE evaporation BTW
That bit of info has Dunning Kruger written all over it !
The more you know, the more you know you don't know ..
And to think we consist primarily of the very same substance 

[Excelsior]

@ SL

Again, I would strongly recommend leveraging your skills and some resources onto the Skinner device,
It's cheap to do and the only base model that seems worthy of replication - (that I am aware of)
- for now is Skinners original design (The video for which is "clear as mud"!)
And David Quireys' revision which is slightly different but achieves the same result to my eye

Would benefit from more practical input from other capable individuals.

There is now more material available to research than there was previously to myself and QE working on it.
Plenty pragmatic a project if you ask me! (Requires quite a lot of "tinkering")
I already wrote a parts list on my build bench, but other approaches remain to be devised.
It's basically an instruction manual (and not in Chingrish!)

There is nothing to say it can't work, and in a number of different ways.
The system accumulates gravitational impetus in each cycle and resembles a flywheel but is operating on two planes.
Idea is the same as any other OU device (force magnification)

The way I see it is, it matters not which device works,
So long as one does, and can be shared then used safely worldwide at no expense to the builder and subsequent end user.

We should be looking to get quality results ASAP in whatever we are doing,
I am just spending less money on it than many others are 
And not "biting off more than I can chew" until I am better equipped to take on more challenging projects.

However, these other projects will not be necessary when the Skinner device runs itself and a load.

Not unless I then want my own personal Fluxliner    (I already do,)

[solarlab]

Hi Excelsior,

Again, thanks - but since I am not familiar with any of 'the stuff' or names that you mention,
I'll pass on this (Skinner) one...

There are a variety of promising patents and other developments that readily lend themselves
to a detailed analysis without a lot of fuzzy logic or speculation.

Magnetic motors, for example, appear to be straight forward but the precise angles need
to be determined, in detail during their complete operational cycle(s), to be truely viable.

There are several examples of working prototypes but detailed operation is not yet specified.

CAE seems to lend itself to this task nicely - however, exotic materials are required and these
may become hard to acquire in the near future.

Also, in order for an excess energy device to be attractive (to me at least) it must be mobile
[not requiring any external attachments - groundings, fixed moorings, roofs, towers, etc.].

Maybe just looking for the "low hanging fruit" so to speak...

Holcomb's Patent, I found, was ideal - it contained nearly all the technical detail in a very well
written form (as much as patents provide at least) and the "Gain" mechanism was clearly
given (the well known B-H Curve we all studied in Middle School). After a bit of detailed CAE
Analysis the viability of the device became quite clear.   

Anyway, best regards and Good Luck! 

SL

@ SL

Again, I would strongly recommend leveraging your skills and some resources onto the Skinner device,
It's cheap to do and the only base model that seems worthy of replication - (that I am aware of)
- for now is Skinners original design (The video for which is "clear as mud"!)
And David Quireys' revision which is slightly different but achieves the same result to my eye

Would benefit from more practical input from other capable individuals.

There is now more material available to research than there was previously to myself and QE working on it.
Plenty pragmatic a project if you ask me! (Requires quite a lot of "tinkering")
I already wrote a parts list on my build bench, but other approaches remain to be devised.
It's basically an instruction manual (and not in Chingrish!)

There is nothing to say it can't work, and in a number of different ways.
The system accumulates gravitational impetus in each cycle and resembles a flywheel but is operating on two planes.
Idea is the same as any other OU device (force magnification)

The way I see it is, it matters not which device works,
So long as one does, and can be shared then used safely worldwide at no expense to the builder and subsequent end user.

We should be looking to get quality results ASAP in whatever we are doing,
I am just spending less money on it than many others are 
And not "biting off more than I can chew" until I am better equipped to take on more challenging projects.

However, these other projects will not be necessary when the Skinner device runs itself and a load.

Not unless I then want my own personal Fluxliner    (I already do,)

[Excelsior]

@SL
Low hanging fruit
Precisely

There are things I have not yet shared for reasons I won't discuss..
However, my intentions should be clear.

Same to you ! 

[Excelsior]

Still plenty of space here for others thoughts on this matter,
Doesn't have to relate directly.
How do people start off in their journey of understanding
And how should they best prepare themselves, and why etc?

All perspectives welcome

[solarlab]

@SL
Low hanging fruit
Precisely

There are things I have not yet shared for reasons I won't discuss..
However, my intentions should be clear.

Same to you ! 

Hi Excelsior,

Rather than chasing a bunch of rainbows and other stuff I think we'll try
"Stacking the LinGen" - seems quite easy to do - and the preliminary data
indicates it might yield a variety of usable configurations.

Call it "Stage III" in the development. And no exotic materials required!

Just a thought for now, of course! Sort of like a Battery for your car.

SL

[Excelsior]

Will take a closer look at your work.

However, as many others agree - until I actually see a Lingen stack is powering my home (for free)

It's just as theoretical as any other device.

I wouldn't personally cast such ridicule, without a "full" knowledge of a given topic!

(Which I'd wager few if any have, even the specialists here on OUR, humans are imperfect)

Each device has its supposed merits.
As I see it, a mechanical design is undeniable in its operation.
It's all just rainbows and "stuff" - until something actually works, it seems.

[solarlab]

Excelsior,

Your thread topic "Regarding Productivity" indicated a quest to look into
"As is any methodology intended to achieve results, without prior conclusions having
been made."

Therefore I responded, otherwise I would have just moved on as I typically do.

FWIW - my publishing the "methodology" used in analyzing elements of Holcomb's Patents
was, in part, to provide another proven means (using CAE) of determining the validity of
some of the claimed technologies. That was accomplished and good results were obtained.

For some strange reason the thread participants seem to read more into my submissions;
wishful thinking I suspect, however several viable methods were introduced that apply to
nearly every scheme found here and elsewhere - you can use professional CAE tools in your
analysis of a device, or portions thereof, to help show whether it's simply BS or is do-able.

If you are simply looking for a device to power your home, the LinGen is a good solution,
amongst others (although, to date, I haven't found any others on these threads) but the
LinGen in it's final form has not been presented yet - to use your quote "There are things I
have not yet shared for reasons I won't discuss.."

It would be good for you "to have a closer look at my work" but keep in mind it's primary
goal is to educate regarding a "better, faster, and cheaper method" of validating ideas.

However, since the fundamentals of the LinGen are also given in a great deal of detail;
your chances of building a working device, if you are at all skilled in the art, are near 99.9%.

Bare in mind, however, the basic scheme falls under one or more of Holcomb's patents.

SL

Will take a closer look at your work.

However, as many others agree - until I actually see a Lingen stack is powering my home (for free)

It's just as theoretical as any other device.

I wouldn't personally cast such ridicule, without a "full" knowledge of a given topic!

(Which I'd wager few if any have, even the specialists here on OUR, humans are imperfect)

Each device has its supposed merits.
As I see it, a mechanical design is undeniable in its operation.
It's all just rainbows and "stuff" - until something actually works, it seems.

[Excelsior]

Anything I build would be for personal use, and the subsequent quenching of a most terrible thirst
(validation of the fact with my own eyes) Then tertiarily - for others to benefit from (if possible)

Patent matters not ! (Skinner never had one issued iinm)
I seek purely to attain clarity in my research, the rest can follow suite.

Thanks for sharing what looks to be very promising stuff !
Hoping it is revelatory and all goes as planned 

Apologies if my reply came off as snarky at all - as my build bench prefaces with, I firmly believe if it's possible at all, then overunity should apply to every utilizable medium; joules are joules (in our perception) and if a conversion process does not exist, it just has yet to be devised.

This thread is intended to aid everyone but is primarily geared towards beginners,
Those looking to get involved somehow but then are swamped out by the technicalities and subtleties of the discussions
A "starting point" to provide newcomers with OUR basic and digestible perspectives on this most confounding matter.

[solarlab]

One primary suggestion I would have for new and seasoned developers is
to enroll, or take a course, in "Computer Aided Engineering (CAE).

There are several professional suites [ANSYS, COMSOL, SOLIDWORKS EM,
CST (Computer Simulation Technology), and likely a few more] that are similar
and will likely do nearly all that is needed to analyze excess energy schemes.

It not only provides access to the tools in a structured environment but
can also lead to some lucrative consulting or captive positions where some
of the tasks/projects can be very interesting and quite exciting...

Well worth the time, money and effort IMHO. And a great learning experience.

Good Luck!

[Excelsior]

@SL Great suggestion, thanks - I would presume the same goes for CAD.
An excellent skill to branch off from, once acquired.

Keep 'em coming folks!

[solarlab]

A quick (older) video to highlight the CAE approach:
[CAD CAM CAE are all somewhat integrated - a big subject however]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkdYbM1kEPA

More detailed (several videos [multi-lingual], training, etc);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6YbHcmGev0&list=PL5G0aeUudxu7Vr2XGo_JGlxQFZPVa5BXU

Many others are available at Ansys, Youtube, etc. as well...

If you're not into this type of "problem analysis" or "using these techniques" then I would strongly suggest
you carry on with your current course of action - this method only presents another well established way of
doing things.

SL